/
How Africa has fared in investment disputes. How Africa has fared in investment disputes.

How Africa has fared in investment disputes. - PowerPoint Presentation

danika-pritchard
danika-pritchard . @danika-pritchard
Follow
343 views
Uploaded On 2018-11-05

How Africa has fared in investment disputes. - PPT Presentation

A reality check By Karel Daele Striking the Legitimate Balance between HostState Sovereignty and Investor Needs Perspectives from and regarding Africa Panel Enhancing Business Opportunities in Africa The Role Reality and Future of AfricaRelated ID: 715271

2014 atlanta egypt november atlanta 2014 november egypt states icsid settled damages africa awarded claims million contracting guinea cases

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "How Africa has fared in investment dispu..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

How Africa has fared in investment disputes. A reality check.

By Karel Daele“Striking the Legitimate Balance between Host-State Sovereignty and Investor Needs: Perspectives from and regarding Africa” Panel“Enhancing Business Opportunities in Africa: The Role, Reality and Future of Africa-Related Arbitration”, Atlanta International Arbitration Society Conference

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide2

Forty-five Contracting States (83.5%)

Three States signed but did not ratify the ICSID Convention (5.5%): Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau and NamibiaSix non-Contracting States (11%): Angola, Djibouti, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Libya and

South Africa

1. CONTRACTING STATES ICSID

- Atlanta

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide3

2.

MAP ICSID

MEMBERSHIPSlide4

While Africa accounts for 28% of ICSID’s membership, it accounts for 23% of its disputes: 113 disputes on a total of

487 70% of the Contracting States (32) have been respondent to one or more ICSID cases 30% of the Contracting States (13) have not been respondent:

Benin, Botswana,

Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Sao Tome & Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia,

Swaziland and Zambia

South Africa and Equatorial Guinea (non-Contracting States) have been respondent to ICSID Additional Facility proceedings3. ICSID RESPONDENTS

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide5

4.

MAP

ICSID

RESPONDENTS Slide6

Forty-one pending cases of which

thirty-nine arbitrations and two conciliationsSeventy-six concluded cases

of which seventy arbitrations and six

conciliations Of the seventy concluded arbitrations:

5.

OUTCOME OF ICSID CASES

2-3 November 2014 - Atlanta

33%

26%

26%

12

%

3%Slide7

More

investor claims are settled than upheld or dismissedThe number of claims upheld equals the number of claims rejectedWorldwide results (UNCTAD

2014 Report):

43% dismissed, 31% upheld, 26% settled

Only 25% of the claims against African States have been upheld;

72% of the claims are either rejected, settled or discontinued 6. OUTCOME OF ICSID CASES

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide8

Twelve States (26%) have been found

liable: Once (8): Burundi, Gabon, Guinea, Liberia, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo and ZimbabweTwice (3): Central African Republic, Congo Republic and TanzaniaOn

three

occasions (1): Egypt Sixteen

States (34%) have been respondent but not found liable (either because the claims were settled, rejected or discontinued): Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, DRC, Gambia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa and Tunisia;

7. LIABILITY

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide9

2-3 November 2014 - Atlanta

7. LIABILITYSlide10

Twenty-three States are involved in pending disputes and are potentially

liable8. POTENTIAL LIABILITY

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide11

8.

POTENTIAL LIABILITY Slide12

Damages exceeding 100 million (1):

Chemin de Fer v Gabon (160)Damages 50 to 100 million (2): Waguih v Egypt (74.5); Siag v Egypt (settled; 74)

Damages 10

to 50 million (4): Togo Electr

v Togo (39); Southern Pacific v Egypt (settled; 22.5);

Wena Hotel v Egypt (19.5); AGIP v Rep. Congo (12)Damages 5 to 10 million (5): American Manufacturing v Egypt (9); Funnekotter v Zimbabwe (8); Liberian Timber v Liberia (8); CDC v Seychelles (6.7) ; AHS Niger v Niger (5.8)Damages 1 to 5 million (3): Middle East Cement v Egypt (3.9); Lahoud v DRC (1.7); Goetz v Burundi I (1.2); Damages 0 to 1 million (5) :

SOABI v Senegal (0.6); Atlantic Triton v Guinea (0.3);

Benvenuti

v Rep Congo (0.1); RSM v CAR (0.02); Biwater v Tanzania (0)

9.

DAMAGES AWARDED

(USD)

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide13

9. DAMAGES AWARDED (USD)

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide14

Over 75% of the claim awarded (2):

CDC v Seychelles (100%); Togo Electr v Togo (95%)Over 50% of the claim awarded (1): Funnekotter v Zimbabwe (70%)

Over 25% of the claim awarded (5):

American Manufacturing v Egypt (42%); Atlantic Triton v Guinea (35%); Waguih v Egypt (34%); Siag v Egypt (settled; 34%); Wena

Hotel v Egypt (30%)

Less than 25% of the claim awarded (7): Southern Pacific v Egypt (settled; 18%); Middle East Cement v Egypt (8%); Lahoud v DRC (8%); Goetz v Burundi I (5%); SOABI v Senegal (14%); RSM v CAR (0.0002%); Biwater v Tanzania (0%)10. RATE of SUCCESS (USD)

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide15

10. RATE of SUCCESS (USD)

2-3 November 2014 - AtlantaSlide16

Karel Daele

Partner International ArbitrationTel: +44 20 7440 7060Fax: +44 20 7831 3487E-mail: karel.daele@mishcon.comMishcon de ReyaSummit House12 Red Lion Square

London

WC1R 4QD

11. THANK YOU

2-3 November 2014 - Atlanta